LESLEY CHAN SIEW YOKE RHB BANK BERHAD

LESLEY CHAN SIEW YOKE RHB BANK BERHAD

Etridge principles did not apply because the facts were materially different (the appellant was a director/shareholder and the loan was for the company, not a domestic/matrimonial home), Section 16 requires the dominating party to be a contracting party and the appellant failed to prove undue influence or any triable issue; therefore summary judgment was properly granted and is upheld.

Citation
12ANCC-120-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / 3rd Defendant: Lesley Chan Siew Yoke; Respondent / Plaintiff: RHB Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 April 2019
Case Number
12ANCC-120-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment / Final Appellate Decision (grounds of Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of Sessions Court upheld
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Personal Guarantee, Summary Judgment, Constructive Notice, Independent Legal Advice, Contracts Act 1950 S.16
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Equity Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Undue Influence Personal Guarantee Summary Judgment Constructive Notice +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Chan Siew Yoke

Appellant / 3rd Defendant

RHB Bank Berhad

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment / Final Appellate Decision (grounds of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee was procured by undue influence under s.16 Contracts Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether the Etridge constructive notice/independent advice principles applied to put the bank on inquiry
  3. 3 Whether a triable issue existed to defeat summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Etridge principles did not apply because the facts were materially different (the appellant was a director/shareholder and the loan was for the company, not a domestic/matrimonial home), Section 16 requires the dominating party to be a contracting party and the appellant failed to prove undue influence or any triable issue; therefore summary judgment was properly granted and is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of Sessions Court upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed